Balsamo wrote:Thank you...But then, why would Signal Corps experts have doctored the picture? The publication is full of naked bodies, so one can exclude any moral motives.

Your theory is plausible, but lacks the "WHY?"

Thanks for that at least. The photo's caption in KZ claims the prisoners had no room to move. Such a claim is rendered absurd when the original version shows that the rest of the bunks were entirely empty.

The composite version was created using Toncman to cover the empty bunks.

Balsamo wrote:Do you imply that the experts would have picked some of the pictures to make them kind of "press friendly" for the US press? while keeping the untouched ones for their "propaganda publication"?

No, not at all.

The PWD were unaware that Denny had obtained an original version and sent it to NY for publication.

"... these witnesses would swear to anything if it gets the Germans killed."- Solomon Surowitz, Assistant Prosecutor at the 1947 Buchenwald trial.

> Thanks for demonstrating that you've not even bothered familiarising yourself with the published literature on matter as you pick up and run with Gord's idea of *if we don't call it doctored then it's not doctored*

> But Romanov is on record claiming I have dreamt up the term.

I didn't say it was or was not "doctored". I don't claim that *your* use of the term is inaccurate (or accurate). And I obviously don't claim you "dreamt up the term" ROTFL. I simply pointed out that it was the word *you* used while making a misleading claim that could lead someone to believe that *I* had used the word (and that I accused a particular individual of "doctoring", too). As usual, you're a bit dim, since the point of what I wrote whooshed completely past you.

> Mr. Plagiarist.

Heh, and you prove that you're a pathological liar once again. But we knew that already, didn't we.

Let's see a repository of any and all pictures we have of this scene: with and without Toncman. Because as we have it right now, the most high resolution pictures we have are pictures that have the knothole touched up. Is that not the case? And Toncman is the only blurry thing in those higher resoltution pics. The bunk people are clearer than Toncman there.

>Why the knothole was touched-up on the Toncman print is a head-scratcher.

Haven't I explained it above?

"There is nothing strange, a fragment of wood texture was copied two times over the number (thus also covering the knothole). You can see the repeating pattern. Which shows the extent of the mad skillz of the Signal Corps guy who retouched this version."

> A double image could, and would, occur if there were a gap or movement between the 2 negatives whilst creating the third negative. Imagine straight rays of light hitting the silver grains and then the top negative moves and the ghost image is made.

Aside from the sheer implausibility of it "moving" all of a sudden in the middle of the process (why?) and the expert forger not noticing it (absurd), had it moved, it would have moved as a piece, thus leaving the "ghost" image not only at the top.

Sergey_Romanov wrote:> A double image could, and would, occur if there were a gap or movement between the 2 negatives whilst creating the third negative. Imagine straight rays of light hitting the silver grains and then the top negative moves and the ghost image is made.

Aside from the sheer implausibility of it "moving" all of a sudden in the middle of the process (why?) and the expert forger not noticing it (absurd), had it moved, it would have moved as a piece, thus leaving the "ghost" image not only at the top.

Sergey_Romanov wrote:> A double image could, and would, occur if there were a gap or movement between the 2 negatives whilst creating the third negative. Imagine straight rays of light hitting the silver grains and then the top negative moves and the ghost image is made.

Aside from the sheer implausibility of it "moving" all of a sudden in the middle of the process (why?) and the expert forger not noticing it (absurd), had it moved, it would have moved as a piece, thus leaving the "ghost" image not only at the top.

Sergey_Romanov wrote:> A double image could, and would, occur if there were a gap or movement between the 2 negatives whilst creating the third negative. Imagine straight rays of light hitting the silver grains and then the top negative moves and the ghost image is made.

Aside from the sheer implausibility of it "moving" all of a sudden in the middle of the process (why?) and the expert forger not noticing it (absurd), had it moved, it would have moved as a piece, thus leaving the "ghost" image not only at the top.

Sergey_Romanov wrote:> A double image could, and would, occur if there were a gap or movement between the 2 negatives whilst creating the third negative. Imagine straight rays of light hitting the silver grains and then the top negative moves and the ghost image is made.

Aside from the sheer implausibility of it "moving" all of a sudden in the middle of the process (why?) and the expert forger not noticing it (absurd), had it moved, it would have moved as a piece, thus leaving the "ghost" image not only at the top.

Sergey_Romanov wrote:> A double image could, and would, occur if there were a gap or movement between the 2 negatives whilst creating the third negative. Imagine straight rays of light hitting the silver grains and then the top negative moves and the ghost image is made.

Aside from the sheer implausibility of it "moving" all of a sudden in the middle of the process (why?) and the expert forger not noticing it (absurd), had it moved, it would have moved as a piece, thus leaving the "ghost" image not only at the top.

Sergey_Romanov wrote:Further implausibility of the Bunny CT: the Signal Corps doctors the photo by adding the man; then someone puts a number on it. Then, instead of using the original doctored photo they had already had, they instead took the photo with the number, deleted the number in a very crude way and stamped the photo with their symbol. The Bunny's CTs are the most Rube Goldbergesque I've seen. His Mogilev footage CT was just as ridiculous.

Straw man *yawn*

Note that the Lying Wabbit has never actually addressed the point, instead pivoting to the irrelevant point about two numbers.

The print that stems from the Signal Corps - bearing its emblem - is the one with the retouched knothole, signifying they did not have a ready access to the negative.

Sergey_Romanov wrote:> A double image could, and would, occur if there were a gap or movement between the 2 negatives whilst creating the third negative. Imagine straight rays of light hitting the silver grains and then the top negative moves and the ghost image is made.

Aside from the sheer implausibility of it "moving" all of a sudden in the middle of the process (why?) and the expert forger not noticing it (absurd), had it moved, it would have moved as a piece, thus leaving the "ghost" image not only at the top.

BRoI wrote:...The photo's caption in KZ claims the prisoners had no room to move. Such a claim is rendered absurd when the original version shows that the rest of the bunks were entirely empty...

I think that's bunkum. They didn't need to be filled at the time the/any photo was taken, eh. And in this one, it seems several bunks held at least three men. (And I count at least three to four men in the last ones. One is just a heap under a blanket in the bottom bunk, but it stands to reason there could be a person under it.)

Before you ask, look at the last man in the top row - he's beyond the bunk post over Toncman's right shoulder - therefore on the fourth vertical row. There's the one peeking out from between his ribs and arm and it seems one can also see his blanket. And to Toncman's right lower arm/wrist, one sees the face of an inmate clearly behind the post of the third bunk (counting from the first full vertical row). And under that, one sees a blanket apparently covering a body in the last bottom bunk. (I count 29 men in that image altogether, including that blanket heap.)

Really, it is a topic hard to follow when you did not participate to the start of it.So you theory is that Toncman has been added by the experts of Signal Corpses in order not to contradict or to illustrate a sentence, that is that "they had no room to move?"

So if i follow - which is not sure - your claim is that the original is without Toncman? Of that Toncman has been removed and the background painted in order to to see that there were "room to move"?

Guys! So much fuss for such small thing!

Man, if the whole controversy is to prove that some picture were ...well kind of set up by the photographers, as it is quite obvious on other pictures, i wonder why you focus on this one?

Really, it is a topic hard to follow when you did not participate to the start of it.So you theory is that Toncman has been added by the experts of Signal Corpses in order not to contradict or to illustrate a sentence, that is that "they had no room to move?"

So if i follow - which is not sure - your claim is that the original is without Toncman? Of that Toncman has been removed and the background painted in order to to see that there were "room to move"?

Guys! So much fuss for such small thing!

Man, if the whole controversy is to prove that some picture were ...well kind of set up by the photographers, as it is quite obvious on other pictures, i wonder why you focus on this one?

What does it change anyway?

I answered this question a while ago. It changes a single person in a photograph.

> So you theory is that Toncman has been added by the experts of Signal Corpses in order not to contradict or to illustrate a sentence, that is that "they had no room to move?"

And this idiocy is fully circular because the Rabbit bases this on the assumption that the photo retouched by the NYTM actually wasn't. I.e. there is no other reason whatsoever except the ad hoc one. The Rabbit cannot show that the sentence was not based on the original photo with the standing man. Moreover, this photo has people on the bunks behind the standing man, something the NYTM retoucher wouldn't have been able to recreate, so he simply deleted everything in the area - another point against the convoluted CT.

- no plausible motive- no plausible hypothesis as to how only one allegedly original photo got out- CTs are inherently implausible and require solid evidence, none is available- no plausible reason as to why this CT has to be the preferred theory- no plausible explanation of the missing bunk post- no plausible explanation of the missing people on the last bunks- no plausible explanation of the motion blur- no plausible explanation as to why such fine details as a textured shadow and motion blur were added- no plausible explanation of why the Signal Corps had to delete the number for their print if the negative was manipulated by them in the first place

It looks pretty sharp to my eyes here as well. I propose that this particular print is one of the first (if not THE first) prints of this picture.

1. Largest field of view2. No numbers or knothole touch-up3. Fairly sharp (srutinize the bunk slats).

This one should be the base picture that we describe any others from (unless there is a better candidate out there). It looks to be the least modified of what I've seen.

I think that's either:

a] A scan from the print that's in the Film & Photography Archive of the Imperial War Museum, London [All Saints Annex, Austral Street] and is online here.

I went to see the actual print a few years ago, writing at the time:

BRoI wrote:Another version of the photo is held by the Imperial War Museum, London. It originates from a collection of approximately 250,000 photographs donated to the museum by the US Embassy in 1947.

The photos are [all?] in green volumes.

b] Or possibly, the US Embassy also donated a copy of collection to Cambridge University as well as one to the IWM.

"... these witnesses would swear to anything if it gets the Germans killed."- Solomon Surowitz, Assistant Prosecutor at the 1947 Buchenwald trial.

Oozy_Substance wrote:Why is it important if the skinny man was inserted into the original picture or was removed from the original picture?.

No one is really sure...I'm sure the Rabbit feels like this is an important point but for life of me I don't know why. Even if the picture was doctored in some way it doesn't change what the other men in the room looked like. It also doesn't change what the allies found in the other camps in Germany.

From what I can tell it is likely that the first publication removed the man from the picture to not upset the sensibilities of 1945 America. Later this was fixed to show the original picture. Even if this poor fellow was added later to somehow ramp up the shock factor, as I said, the other men in the room look terrible and it doesn't change what the allies filmed and recorded outside.

Oozy_Substance wrote:Why is it important if the skinny man was inserted into the original picture or was removed from the original picture?

Another picture of him exists, I do remember, so he clearly was in the camp and he was clearly reduced to this level of starvation. This is the crime.

I asked this earlier, but it seems you don't know the Rabbit that well. He's pretty much a cynical {!#%@} who presses his time on non issues just to badger others on minor issues. He believes he proved the photograph to be fake and Sergey from Holocaust controversies believes he proved otherwise. Now all it has come to is Rabbit badgering a dead subject, that relies on just as much speculation from both sides to claim which photograph is forgued.

One blames the NYT's the other blames I believe the US military (honestly I haven't bothered to reread rabbits accusation).

. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817